Well, that's not true. You can obfuscate some data so that it adds up to what you want it to.
If I want you to believe that the empirical number of amazingness was 39, but it was in fact 42, all I would have to do is remove two and any references of either number.
They do this with all other data as well, especially in the incestuous peer reviewing community.
Not true. At one time the math said if they do a fusion bomb tje entire atmosphere would chain react and destroy the world. Theory wasn't true but math proved the theory.
Not true. At one time the math said if they do a fusion bomb tje entire atmosphere would chain react and destroy the world. Theory wasn't true but math proved the theory. Oppenheimer said it himself.
The most accurate thing you said here was “fusion bomb”.
I think the issue is that there’s no evidence that space and time create a “fabric”. It’s pushed so overwhelmingly on us through media and the education system that people believe that it’s true, and mock anyone who suggests otherwise.
Math is just a language. Like all other languages, the only requirement to use that language is that whatever you say must conform to the structure of the language. Thus math is always consistent within it's own definitions, i.e. it's either math or it's not.
However, like any other language, as long as you conform to its structure, you can use that language to say anything you want. Math has been used to create psyops for pretty much every single psyop that exists. For example, you can manipulate data, which creates a false reality. You don't even have to lie about the data, you just need to create categories that add up in a certain way to sell a specific narrative. In Covid for example, they didn't make the distinction between "died with covid," and "died from covid" when posting their super scary death totals. If they had, they wouldn't have been able to scare anyone.
There's a somewhat famous book called "How to lie with statistics" that goes into details of numerous tips and tricks on how to say anything you want with math and data; create any reality you desire.
These same criticisms go for physics theories. A theory in physics (or any scientific field) is just a model. It doesn't tell you what Reality is, it only models it using the data that is available at the time. In our case, we know with certainty that all of our models are wrong. What we don't know is how wrong. They obviously work pretty well for a lot of things, but they don't work for everything.
All the previous models that our current models supplanted worked really well too. Newton's gravity got supplanted by Einstein's model, but Newton's model worked really well, and we still use it today even though we say "it's totally wrong." Even the Earth centric models of the Universe from before the 1600s are used today. Maybe not for modelling planet behavior, but for other things we use the same math all the time (it's just an application of Fourier analysis). In fact the Platonic geocentric models worked so well, with a little modification to what Plato did, using the exact same premises (all orbits can be described by perfect epicycles), they can be made to work better than any other model we have.
Does that make them true? Is the Earth the center of the universe just because we can create a perfect mathematical model of such a system? We can apply that same system to any point in the universe as the center and create a perfect predictive system. So it's not really the best system to use, even though it was the dominant description of the universe for millennia. It wasn't supplanted because it didn't work, it was supplanted because it wasn't extensible.
The point is, all of these different models work really well, but they all have completely different foundations (starting axioms). The one we have completely rejected (Platonic geocentric model) actually has (potentially) the most accurate predictive power. Which one is true?
The correct answer is D: None of the above.
We don't know what the Truth is. Thinking that we do, or that our "science has proven" it is exactly the trap we are intended to believe in. The trap set up by the Cabal to control society for the past couple centuries.
You can't turn mathematics into a psyop. It either adds up or it doesn't.
Well, that's not true. You can obfuscate some data so that it adds up to what you want it to.
If I want you to believe that the empirical number of amazingness was 39, but it was in fact 42, all I would have to do is remove two and any references of either number.
They do this with all other data as well, especially in the incestuous peer reviewing community.
Not true. At one time the math said if they do a fusion bomb tje entire atmosphere would chain react and destroy the world. Theory wasn't true but math proved the theory.
Oppenheimer said it himself.
The most accurate thing you said here was “fusion bomb”.
It was all accurate..
I think the issue is that there’s no evidence that space and time create a “fabric”. It’s pushed so overwhelmingly on us through media and the education system that people believe that it’s true, and mock anyone who suggests otherwise.
Math is just a language. Like all other languages, the only requirement to use that language is that whatever you say must conform to the structure of the language. Thus math is always consistent within it's own definitions, i.e. it's either math or it's not.
However, like any other language, as long as you conform to its structure, you can use that language to say anything you want. Math has been used to create psyops for pretty much every single psyop that exists. For example, you can manipulate data, which creates a false reality. You don't even have to lie about the data, you just need to create categories that add up in a certain way to sell a specific narrative. In Covid for example, they didn't make the distinction between "died with covid," and "died from covid" when posting their super scary death totals. If they had, they wouldn't have been able to scare anyone.
There's a somewhat famous book called "How to lie with statistics" that goes into details of numerous tips and tricks on how to say anything you want with math and data; create any reality you desire.
These same criticisms go for physics theories. A theory in physics (or any scientific field) is just a model. It doesn't tell you what Reality is, it only models it using the data that is available at the time. In our case, we know with certainty that all of our models are wrong. What we don't know is how wrong. They obviously work pretty well for a lot of things, but they don't work for everything.
All the previous models that our current models supplanted worked really well too. Newton's gravity got supplanted by Einstein's model, but Newton's model worked really well, and we still use it today even though we say "it's totally wrong." Even the Earth centric models of the Universe from before the 1600s are used today. Maybe not for modelling planet behavior, but for other things we use the same math all the time (it's just an application of Fourier analysis). In fact the Platonic geocentric models worked so well, with a little modification to what Plato did, using the exact same premises (all orbits can be described by perfect epicycles), they can be made to work better than any other model we have.
Does that make them true? Is the Earth the center of the universe just because we can create a perfect mathematical model of such a system? We can apply that same system to any point in the universe as the center and create a perfect predictive system. So it's not really the best system to use, even though it was the dominant description of the universe for millennia. It wasn't supplanted because it didn't work, it was supplanted because it wasn't extensible.
The point is, all of these different models work really well, but they all have completely different foundations (starting axioms). The one we have completely rejected (Platonic geocentric model) actually has (potentially) the most accurate predictive power. Which one is true?
The correct answer is D: None of the above.
We don't know what the Truth is. Thinking that we do, or that our "science has proven" it is exactly the trap we are intended to believe in. The trap set up by the Cabal to control society for the past couple centuries.
Well said
Same can be said of science in general. Yet here we are in the age of the reproducibility crisis.